AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Admit.
The following substantial questions of law are framed:
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in respect of g alleged unexplained investment in property of Rs. 10,38,000 u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged unexplained deposit in the bank accounts of the appellant, his wife and his daughter aggregating to Rs. 6,01,983?
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining an addition of Rs. 62,000 on account of unexplained expenditure on account of purchase of car by taking the figures from appellant''s cash book, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer has treated the appellant''s cash book as genuine?
Insofar as proposed Question No. 1 is concerned, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises for our consideration for the reasons given hereinafter:
The question of law as proposed is as follows:
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining addition to the extent of Rs. 36,918 out of the total addition made on account of alleged undisclosed rental income by holding that 1/11th of the total rental income is assessable in the hands of the appellant despite the fact the appellant was not owning any property?
It is not indispute that the property in question was owned by Late M.C. Jain, On his demise, the rentals were being received by the Assessee/Appellant. The Assessing Officer after deducting the amounts by the assessee to his mother taxed the remainder in the hands of the assessee. The amount for assessment year 2001-02 is Rs. 67,500; for assessment year 2002-03 is Rs. 2,01,300 and for assessment year 2003-04 is Rs. 57,800. The ITAT correctly applied the law by observing that since Late M.C. Jain had died intestate, the assessee was entitled to 1/11th share of the rental income as there were eleven legal representatives. It is not in dispute before us that the factum of the property, being self-acquired property of Late M.C. Jain, was never raised in any of the Forums below.